4 ms·
>The group measured the times that millions of photons took to travel from a 1.2-watt laser emitting 800-nanometer wavelength light into one side of the head to
by hollerith 1y ago
>The group measured the times that millions of photons took to travel from a 1.2-watt laser emitting 800-nanometer wavelength light into one side of the head to a detector on the other side.
Sunlight contains copious amounts of 800-nm light, so this is probably completely non-hazardous.
- ben_w 1y agoWhile it's almost certainly safe or it wouldn't have passed the ethics committee, what you say is an insufficiently detailed description of setup to determine if it's fine or not. 1.2 watts over your entire head is fine. 1.2 watts in a 800nm-diameter cylindrical path is "for some reason we decided to make the outer few millimetres of your skin explode, but we had to be in contact with your skin to manage that because that power density of laser would have ionised the air before it reached you".
- astrobe_ 1y agoWhat can one actually do with a 1 Watt laser? That's a good question to ask to an AI: "A 1-watt laser can be used for various applications, such as cutting materials, engraving, and even lighting cigarettes. However, it poses significant risks, including the potential to cause instant and permanent eye injuries, so safety precautions are essential". So it looks like it packs some... Power. But I guess the frequency of the light makes all the difference, or maybe exposure duration?
- cogman10 1y agoEnergy is what your looking for. Static electricity discharges at around 400 to 600W. Yet it's for an extremely brief amount of time. Sub millisecond usually) so the actual energy transferred is minimal. It takes around 1Wh to heat a liter of water 1 degree just to put things in perspective.
- codedokode 1y agoThe laser concentrates the power in a small spot that's why it is more dangerous. Consider what 1W would do to 1 mm³ of water.
- addaon 1y ago> That's a good question to ask to an AI What makes you say that? By what metric?
- imchillyb 1y agoNot OP, but… Asking Google about one watt lasers inevitably produces junk that does not address the question at all. Sifting and sorting through that junk is tiresome. AI provides a succinct answer with as much depth is requested and can further clarify or expound on the original findings. What’s not to like about such interactions? And, furthermore, how is the AI interaction in this case not objectively ‘better’ than a Google search?
- astrobe_ 1y agoI think at least it is good at answering questions that have been asked before, in some way or another. But the real question is, why didn't I also ask my follow up question to it, instead of trying to talk with humans? I think I prefer to learn from real people with hands-on experience, and maybe hear amazing or amusing stories in the process.
- pier25 1y agoYeah but to be pedantic 800nm is the wavelength of the light of the laser :)
- ben_w 1y agoWhich is why I chose that spot size :P Technically it is possible to focus on things a bit smaller than a wavelength, but not by much and some of the options don't even work far from the lens itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction-limited_system#The_Abbe_diffraction_limit_for_a_microscope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction-limited_system#The...